5.  The first applicant, Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete (“MTE”) is an association seated in Budapest. It is the self-regulatory body of Hungarian Internet content providers, monitoring the implementation of a professional code of Internet content providing and a code of ethics, as well as operating an arbitration commission whose decision are binding on its eleven members.
The second applicant, Index.hu Zrt (“Index”) is a company limited by shares, seated in Budapest. It is the owner of one of the major Internet news portals in Hungary.
6.  At the material time both applicants allowed users to comment on the publications appearing on their portals. Comments could be uploaded following registration and were not previously edited or moderated by the applicants.
7.  The applicants advised their readers, in the form of disclaimers, that the comments did not reflect the portals’ own opinion and that the authors of comments were responsible for their contents.
8.  Both applicants put in place a system of notice-and-take-down, namely, any reader could notify the service provider of any comment of concern and request its deletion. In addition, in the case of Index, comments were partially moderated, and removed, if necessary.
9.  Both portals stated that comments infringing the personality rights of others could not be uploaded on the websites.
10.  Index’s “Principles of moderation” contained the following:
“I.  Deletion of comments 1.  comments that, at the time of their posting, infringe the laws of Hungary, indicate or incite to crime or any other unlawful act... 3.  vulgar, aggressive, threatening comments. What is vulgar, aggressive or threatening has to be decided by the moderators, in the light of the given topic...”
11.  On 5 February 2010 MTE published an opinion under the title “Another unethical commercial conduct on the net” about two real estate management websites, owned by the same company. According to the opinion, the two websites provided thirty-day long advertising service for their users free of charge. Following the expiry of the thirty-day free period, the service became subject to a fee; and this without prior notification of the users. This was possible because, by registering on the website, the users accepted the terms and conditions stipulating that they could be changed unilaterally by the service provider. The opinion also noted that the service provider removed any obsolete advertisements and personal data from the websites only if any overdue charges were paid. The opinion concluded that the conduct of the service provider was unethical and misleading.
12.  The opinion attracted some comments of users, acting under pseudonyms, amongst which there were the following:
“They have talked about these two rubbish real estate websites (“két szemét ingatlanos oldalról”) a thousand times already.”
“Is this not that Benkő-Sándor-sort-of sly, rubbish, mug company (“benkősándoros sunyi szemét lehúzó cég”) again? I ran into it two years ago, since then they have kept sending me emails about my overdue debts and this and that. I am above 100,000 [Hungarian forints] now. I have not paid and I am not going to. That’s it.”
13.  On 8 February 2010 the Internet portal www.vg.hu, operated by Zöld Újság Zrt, reproduced the opinion word by word under the title “Another mug scandal”.
14.  The consumer protection column of Index also wrote about the opinion under the title “Content providers condemn [one of the incriminated property websites]”, publishing the full text of the opinion. One of the user comments posted on Index by a reader acting under a pseudonym read as follows:
“People like this should go and shit a hedgehog and spend all their money on their mothers’ tombs until they drop dead.” (“Azért az ilyenek szarjanak sünt és költsék az összes bevételüket anyjuk sírjára, amíg meg nem dögölnek.”)
15.  On 17 February 2010 the company operating the websites concerned brought a civil action before the Budapest Regional Court against the applicants and Zöld Újság Zrt. The plaintiff claimed that the opinion, whose content was false and offensive, and the subsequent comments had infringed its right to good reputation.
Once learning of the impending court action, the applicants removed the impugned comments at once.
16.  In their counterclaims before the Regional Court, the applicants argued that they, as intermediary publishers under Act no. CVIII of 2001, were not liable for the user comments. They noted that the business practice of the plaintiff, affecting wide ranges of consumers, attracted numerous complaints to the consumer protection organs and prompted several procedures against the company.
17.  On 31 March 2011 the Regional Court partially sustained the claim, holding that the plaintiff’s right to good reputation had been infringed. As a preliminary remark, the court observed that consumer protection bodies had instituted various proceedings against the plaintiff company, since it had not informed its clients adequately about its business policies.
The Court found that the comments (see paragraphs 12 and 14 above) were offensive, insulting and humiliating and went beyond the acceptable limits of freedom of expression. The court rejected the applicants’ argument that they were only intermediaries and their sole obligation was to remove certain contents, in case of a complaint. It found that the comments constituted edited content, fell in the same category as readers’ letters and the respondents were liable for enabling their publication, notwithstanding the fact that later on they had removed them.
As regards the content of the opinion as such, the court found that it had contributed to an on-going social and professional debate on the questionable conduct of the real estate websites and did not exceed the acceptable level of criticism.
18.  Both parties appealed. In their appeal the applicants argued that the plaintiff had not requested them to remove the offensive comments. Nonetheless, they had done so as soon as soon as they had been informed of the plaintiff’s action. They also argued that users’ comments were to be distinguished from readers’ letters, since these latter were only published on the basis of editorial decisions, whereas comments did not constitute edited content. They argued that, in respect of comments, they had only acted as service providers of information storage.
19.  On 27 October 2011 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld in essence the first-instance decision but amended its reasoning. It ordered each applicant to pay 5,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) as first-instance and HUF 36,000 as second-instance procedural fee.
20.  The Court of Appeal held that – as opposed to readers’ letters whose publication was dependent on editorial decisions – the comments, unedited, reflected the opinions of the sole commenters. Notwithstanding that, the owner of the website concerned was liable for them. According to the court’s reasoning, Act no. CVIII of 2001, transposing Directive 2000/31/EC on Electronic Commerce into Hungarian law, did not apply to the applicants’ case since it only related to electronic services of commercial nature, in particular to purchases through the Internet. Under section 2(3) of the Act, electronic commercial services were information society-related services whose purpose was the sale, purchase or exchange of a tangible and moveable property, which was not the situation in the applicants’ case. In any event, pursuant to its section 1(4), the scope of the Act did not extend to expressions made by persons acting outside the sphere of economic or professional activities or public duties, even if uttered in connection with a purchase through the Internet. For the Court of Appeal, the comments were private utterances which did not fall under Act no. CVIII of 2001 on Electronic Commercial Services. Thus, there was no reason to assess the meaning of the terms of ‘hosting service providers’ and ‘intermediaries’ under that Act. Nonetheless, the comments attracted the applicability of the Civil Code rules on personality rights, notably Article 78. Since the comments were injurious for the plaintiff, the applicants bore objective liability for their publication, irrespectively of the subsequent removal, which was only relevant for the assessment of any compensation.
21.  The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Kúria. They argued that, in their interpretation of the relevant law, they were under no obligation to monitor or edit the comments uploaded by readers on their websites.
22.  On 13 June 2012 the Kúria upheld the previous judgments. It stressed that the applicants, by enabling readers to make comments on their websites, had assumed objective liability for any injurious or unlawful comments made by those readers. It rejected the applicants’ argument that they were only intermediary providers which allowed them to escape any liability for the contents of comments, other than removing them if injurious to a third party. The Kúria held that the applicants were not intermediaries in terms of section 2(lc) of Act no. CVIII and they could not invoke the limited liability of hosting service providers. It shared the Court of Appeal’s view in finding that the comments were capable of harming the plaintiff’s good reputation and that the applicants’ liability consisted of their having allowed their publication.
The Kúria imposed HUF 75,000 on each applicant as review costs, including the costs of the plaintiff’s legal representation.
This decision was served on 2 October 2012.
23.  The applicants introduced a constitutional complaint on 3 January 2013, arguing in essence that the courts’ rulings holding them responsible for the contents of the comments amounted to an unjustified restriction on their freedom of expression.
24.  On 11 March 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible.
25.  On 27 May 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint, (decision no. 19/2014. (V.30.) AB). In the analysis of the proportionality of the interference, the Constitutional Court explained the absence of unconstitutionality in the case as follows.
“[43] In the case concerned by the Kúria’s judgment, the operator of the webpage did not moderate the comments. The identities of those primarily responsible, unless figuring nominatively, are unknown; and for that reason, the liability lies with the operator of the webpage.
[44] In the present case, the aggrieved fundamental right is not the right to freedom of expression as such, but one of its particular elements, the right to freedom of the press.
[50] It is without doubt that blogs and comments constitute expressions and as such attract the protection of Chapter IX of the Fundamental Law.
[59] The liability incumbent on the operator of the webpage obviously restricts freedom of the press – which includes, without doubt, communication on the Internet.
[63] The legislation pursues a constitutionally justified aim. It is also suitable for that purpose in that, without the liability of the operator of the webpage, the person concerned could hardly receive compensation for the grievance. However, the proportionality of the restriction is open to doubt from two perspectives: is it proportionate to hold the operator of the webpage liable for the expression which proved to be unlawful; and moreover, is the extent of the liability (that is, the amount of compensation) proportionate?
[65] If the liability for the publication of comments is based on the very fact of the publication itself, it is not justified to distinguish between moderated and non-moderated comments in regard to the proportionality of the restriction on the fundamental right in question. ... The Constitutional Court has already held that the liability of press organs – not of the author – as applied in order to protect personality rights is constitutional.”